| People v Conley |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00540 [135 AD3d 1238] |
| January 28, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJames Conley, Appellant. |
John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Michael J. Andreani of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County(McGuire, J.), rendered November 12, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guiltyof the crimes of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and incest inthe first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to course of sexual conduct against a child in the firstdegree and incest in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. County Courtthereafter sentenced him to two concurrent prison terms of 18 years, to be followed by 20years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Defendant's valid and uncontested waiver of the right to appeal thejudgment of conviction and sentence precludes both his challenge to the agreed-uponsentence as harsh and excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Morrison, 106 AD3d1201, 1202 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1065 [2014]) and his challenge toCounty Court's denial of his application to redact certain information contained in thepresentence investigation report (see People v Joslin, 130 AD3d 1093, 1093-1094 [2015],lv denied 26 NY3d 1009 [2015]; People v Guyette, 121 AD3d 1430, 1431 [2014]). To theextent that defendant argues in his pro se brief that his plea was not knowing, intelligentand voluntary because it was coerced, this issue is unpreserved for our review as therecord does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Colon, 106 AD3d1367, 1368 [2013]; Peoplev Morelli, 46 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 814 [2008]).Further, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here, as defendantdid not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt orotherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Kormos, 126AD3d 1039, 1040 [2015]; People v Cajigas, 123 AD3d 1299, 1300 [2014]).Defendant's remaining claims, to the extent they are properly before us, have been [*2]considered and found to be without merit.
Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.